Most Compelling Story of Mormons Leaving the LDS Church I Have Ever Seen

[Marie5890]

Does anyone think Catholics haven’t also left the Church after being exposed to supposed truths of church history? I’ve read of people losing their faith because of the sex abuse scandals, to name a recent one. Church activities in the middle ages are popular with many others, as a scapegoat. The fact is people lose their faith for a variety of reasons, then they often pick evidence that justifies the decision. The same evidence to a believer does not sway their faith in Christ.

I think quote by a Lewis is appropriate

Absolutely Catholics have left the Catholic church for a variety of matters, just like you say.

Addressing the bolded part, for many former Mormons, they never sought to leave the LDS church. It is often times only after researching deeper that they leave. But their intent wasn’t to pick evidence to justify their leaving.

It’s a painful crisis of faith that often tears their families assunder,(and I am saying rips to pieces) when they discover what was hidden from them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course.

But unfortunately, what Jesus taught through the Church HE built is not the same as what Joseph Smith taught through the “church” he built.

Catholicism and Mormonism are VERY different, and since they teach contradictory and conflicting doctrines, the Holy Spirit cannot be leading them both.

Mormonism ain’t it. :nope:

 

[Stephen168]

Because of the witness received by the Holy Ghost. This witness is not simply a misdirected feeling as Paul D or Marie would claim.

How can we confirm that historical analysis does not disprove the claims of the Catholic Church?

Mormons, like supporters of same sex “marriage,” and most supporters of abortion, subscribe to fideism. Reason is set aside, so they believe it because they believe it. Pope John Paul explained the Catholic position in Fides et Ratio.

 

[Janderich]

Mormons, like supporters of same sex “marriage,” and most supporters of abortion, subscribe to fideism. Reason is set aside, so they believe it because they believe it. Pope John Paul explained the Catholic position in Fides et Ratio.

False. We know reason and faith work together and that ultimately truth discovered by any means will prevail. However, there are different ways to uncover truth and some truths are based on a spiritual witness while others are based on scientific evidence. It is the same in the Catholic faith.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

How can we confirm that historical analysis does not disprove the claims of the Catholic Church?

By studying it

One of the reasons I converted from Protestantism (non-denominational, Pentecostal, Lutheran)

Read the Early Church Fathers. Read The Didache. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to read early accounts of how the Church was and what they believed and to still say that it showed that The Early Church was not Catholic. All claims that The Catholic Church was not the early Church (The Mormon church, Jehova’s witnesses or even primitive Baptists claim the early church believed as they believe) can never be backed up by any evidence from The early writings or recorded history. The only other thing to say is that these early writings are incorrect and suddenly some new denomination got everything right. I trust those that actually learned from The Apostles themselves and were around in the times of The Early Church.

 

[Stephen168]

False. We know reason and faith work together and that ultimately truth discovered by any means will prevail. However, there are different ways to uncover truth and some truths are based on a spiritual witness while others are based on scientific evidence.

No, it is true. Mormons, like supporters of same-sex ‘marriage,’ and most supporters of abortion, subscribe to fideism. For example in Mormonism faith conflicts with reason; e.g. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God conflicts with the fact that revelations claimed by Smith are false.
Mormonism is taking on a more pro-abortion teaching, and Joseph Smith rejected Christian marriage.

As you see reason is set aside, so they believe it because they believe it.

 

[KEP1983]

By studying it

One of the reasons I converted from Protestantism (non-denominational, Pentecostal, Lutheran)

Read the Early Church Fathers. Read The Didache. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to read early accounts of how the Church was and what they believed and to still say that it showed that The Early Church was not Catholic. All claims that The Catholic Church was not the early Church (The Mormon church, Jehova’s witnesses or even primitive Baptists claim the early church believed as they believe) can never be backed up by any evidence from The early writings or recorded history. The only other thing to say is that these early writings are incorrect and suddenly some new denomination got everything right. I trust those that actually learned from The Apostles themselves and were around in the times of The Early Church.

Exactly. I’m a former Protestant and, after studying the writings of the Early Church,I had to conclude the Early Church was Catholic.

I also noticed that most of the sects and religions that came later always looked back to the Catholic Church as the evil institution that destroyed everything, with God needing to send some reformer or prophet to fix everything up.

For Protestants God had to send Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, (or even King Henry the VIII) to restore the Gospel that the Catholic Church had lost. For Muslims God had to send Muhammad to restore the original Gospel that the Catholic Church had supposedly destroyed. For Baha’i God had to send the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh to fix what the Catholic Church destroyed and restore Jesus’ original teachings. For Jehovah’s Witnesses God had to send Charles Russell to restore the original Gospel that the Catholic Church lost. For Seventh Day Adventists, God had to send Ellen G White to restore the true gospel after the Great Whore of Babylon, the Catholic Church, destroyed it. And lastly, for Mormons, God had to send Joseph Smith to restore what the Catholic Church had destroyed.

(Heck, even atheists and secularists often believe that Pagan Rome was a wonderful time of liberal-minded ‘goodness,’ that the Catholic Church destroyed when it became dominant in Europe, and the Enlightenment restored this liberal-minded secularist greatness.)

All of them have one thing in common-- that God couldn’t keep the Catholic Church from destroying Jesus original teachings after a few centuries, and so God had to send someone else many centuries later to fix it up.

They all also have one other thing in common-- they all focus on Scripture (or even write new Scriptures) to prove their points that Jesus teachings were corrupted, yet none of them started by reading the Early Church Fathers’ to prove there really ever was doctrinal corruption by the Catholic Church that occurred at some point after Christ.

That’s why Bl Cardinal Newman said “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” The study of history also ceases Mormonism, Islam, Baha’i, etc.

 

[B79]

Merry Christmas, all!

CaliLobo, you asked: ‘How can we confirm that historical analysis does not disprove the claims of the Catholic Church?’

Good question – it’s because that analysis has been conducted (thoroughly) over the course of 2,000 years. Some of it you will find in the apologetics section of this site. The Catholic Church has never so much as contradicted herself in her official teaching over the course of two millenia (compare that to Martin Luther’s contradictions over the number of sacraments, for example). That is why the Catholic Church today stands alone in preserving the traditional Christian position against contraception (a unanimous teaching among Christian denominations until well into the 20th century).

Interestingly, when history or science touch on something pertaining to the Catholic faith, it is typically to CONFIRM the Catholic position. With due respect to our Mormon friend, the same cannot be said for the LDS – as noted in a Catholic Answers tract, there is a ‘…total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.
Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.’

God bless all of you.

 

[B79]

catholic.com/tracts/problems-with-the-book-of-mormon

 

[rmcmullan]

If you were to ask your average chapel-going LDS why other Mormons leave the church, most likely you would get an answer blaming the individuals who left in some way. Something like, “They were not active in the church,” or "They must not want to live the “Word of Wisdom” or “They must have committed a serious sin” or “The adversary has influenced them.” The answer you most definitely would not hear is, “They started doing historical research and they learned a lot of troubling things that convinced them the church is not true.” This possibility does not exist for them…

I’m going to have to disagree with this statement. I think the opposite is more likely true. As for intellectualism being the road to non-belief, that’s an old problem and not unique to Mormons. Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. One emphasizes faith and feelings, the other fact and methodical inquiry.

The thing I don’t like about misapplying the scientific method to the very human religious experience is that it seems to leave the backslider with a smug sort of self-justification. I prefer the person who just shrugs and just drifts away until the light he once had is taken away from him and he is unable to hear or see.

 

[truthsilence]

False. We know reason and faith work together and that ultimately truth discovered by any means will prevail. However, there are different ways to uncover truth and some truths are based on a spiritual witness while others are based on scientific evidence. It is the same in the Catholic faith.

No amount of faith or reason could cause me to believe that God our Father, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, started out as a man, on an earth like ours, and “progressed” to Godhood. That’s the biggest reason why I left the Mormon church. How does one get a “witness” of that?

 

[twopekinguys]

He investigated a number of faiths and said he was somewhat partial to the Methodist sect. However so great was the confusion and strife among all of them that he could not figure out what to do. That is when he read the scripture in James 1:5 which says to ask God.

Sacrament is a rather simple affair in the LDS church. In many ways we believe in simplicity of the ordinances so as not to confuse the symbol from the symbolized. The bread and water are covered with a white cloth. The bread is broken and then a blessing said wherein all those partaking commit to follow the Jesus Christ and remember him, for which in return he promises his spirit to always be with us. The bread is then passed to the congregation. The water follows a similar format.

But that doesn’t answer the question of why he tried to join the Methodist Church after his “first vision”. The “first vision” of course told him that all other faiths were an abomination.
(at least one of the versions anyway )

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m going to have to disagree with this statement. I think the opposite is more likely true. As for intellectualism being the road to non-belief, that’s an old problem and not unique to Mormons. Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. One emphasizes faith and feelings, the other fact and methodical inquiry.

The thing I don’t like about misapplying the scientific method to the very human religious experience is that it seems to leave the backslider with a smug sort of self-justification. I prefer the person who just shrugs and just drifts away until the light he once had is taken away from him and he is unable to hear or see.

Seems Chris-WA left two things off his list.

People who leave Mormonism are smug backsliders and people who leave Mormonism are blind and deaf drifters.

These two alone must have people lined up for miles to convert to Mormonism.

 

[Janderich]

No amount of faith or reason could cause me to believe that God our Father, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, started out as a man, on an earth like ours, and “progressed” to Godhood. That’s the biggest reason why I left the Mormon church. How does one get a “witness” of that?

Well without faith or reason you will never get a witness of the truth. In all heaven and earth I see no other way to obtain it.

 

[Janderich]

But that doesn’t answer the question of why he tried to join the Methodist Church after his “first vision”. The “first vision” of course told him that all other faiths were an abomination.
(at least one of the versions anyway )

Nobody who has charged Joseph Smith with joining a church between 1820 and 1830 has ever produced any authentic denominational membership record that would substantiate such a claim

Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place.

• Fayette Lapham claimed that Joseph had joined the Baptist Church.
• Joseph and Hiel Lewis claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.
• S.F. Anderick claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Presbyterian Church.

We must note too that none of these sources confirms the others—they all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing.

Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that these claims are not valid and, therefore, do not reflect historical reality. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices. (en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches)

 

[truthsilence]

Well without faith or reason you will never get a witness of the truth. In all heaven and earth I see no other way to obtain it.

I agree with you Janderich. I will add that (remember) reason and faith go hand in hand. But if you’ve read and believe anything sacred scripture has to say about God, you will know that He alone is uncreated, He is eternally God. How can you obtain another witness which completely contradicts that one?

 

[Janderich]

I agree with you Janderich. I will add that (remember) reason and faith go hand in hand. But if you’ve read and believe anything sacred scripture has to say about God, you will know that He alone is uncreated, He is eternally God. How can you obtain another witness which completely contradicts that one?

i suspect we would disagree about what the scriptures say. Perhaps if we pressed further we may disagree about who received what witness. At this point the discussion would break down since one of us would be right and the other wrong but we could not argue further since each witness is personal.

 

[truthsilence]

i suspect we would disagree about what the scriptures say. Perhaps if we pressed further we may disagree about who received what witness. At this point the discussion would break down since one of us would be right and the other wrong but we could not argue further since each witness is personal.

Weak argument. I am in fact curious to know what you think the scriptures say about this particular subject. If you are convinced “you’re right”, then why be concerned whether or not the discussion breaks down? I think you know darn well there’s a problem here. Huge problem.

 

[twopekinguys]

Nobody who has charged Joseph Smith with joining a church between 1820 and 1830 has ever produced any authentic denominational membership record that would substantiate such a claim

Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place.

• Fayette Lapham claimed that Joseph had joined the Baptist Church.
• Joseph and Hiel Lewis claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.
• S.F. Anderick claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Presbyterian Church.

We must note too that none of these sources confirms the others—they all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing.

Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that these claims are not valid and, therefore, do not reflect historical reality. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices. (en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smit…other_churches)

If he wasn’t allowed to join, there wouldn’t be any membership records now would there? In looking at the entire article, it says he was “probationary”.

Also notice that I did not say he “joined” the Methodist Church, only that he “tried”. Big difference.

Also, they must have missed out on this information. (emphasis mine)

The young prophet’s roll as a Methodist member did not last very long, however - only three days** according to statements made by his wife’s cousins, Joseph and Hiel Lewis. In their local newspaper at Amboy, Illinois they told of their earlier years with Joseph Smith in Pennsylvania and of his uniting with their Methodist class:
**
I’m guessing fairmormon didn’t research very deeply. Also, I give just as much weight, if not more to and independent individuals statement than I would to smith’s. After all, it appears that these cousin’s didn’t have a bone to pick with him, so they can’t be considered “anti’s”

utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithmethodist.htm

 

[Theo520]

Absolutely Catholics have left the Catholic church for a variety of matters, just like you say.

Addressing the bolded part, for many former Mormons, they never sought to leave the LDS church. It is often times only after researching deeper that they leave. But their intent wasn’t to pick evidence to justify their leaving.

It’s a painful crisis of faith that often tears their families assunder,(and I am saying rips to pieces) when they discover what was hidden from them.

How do my Catholic examples not apply in the exact same manner? I never said it was intentional nor is leaving any less painful for previously devout Catholics who claim the Church has failed them and hidden the truth.

If religion is too close to home for objectivity, the same situation happens with divorce. When someone has in effect lost their faith, they readily find the reasons that justify leaving the marriage.